Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nt wright’

So John MacArthur is challenging N. T. Wright. He calls Wright’s writings “a mass confusing ambiguity, contradiction, and obfuscation.” (Extra credit to MacArthur for using the word obfuscation). He credits Wright with “academic sleight of hand.” In the end, MacArthur accuses Wright of propagating a false gospel. You can watch the video here… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJEZiLfYHk

Regardless of whether one takes sides in this situation, we ought to ask ourselves how disagreement should be handled in the church.

MacArthur may come across as funny or clever when he makes a statement like “N. T. Wrong.” Still, to vilify our sisters and brothers does not communicate that we are one body. Even in our differences we are to communicate unity not division. Anything else hinders our witness.

I wish we could see disagreement as an opportunity to demonstrate how we are different than the world. Can we not talk to one another rather than about one another? There will be disagreement. Of that we can be sure. But the way we disagree becomes very important.

I admit to be influenced by a book I’ve been reading this past month. Perhaps I should send MacArthur a copy. Maybe he has read it. The title is I Corinthians. This book has had it with division. Every page is seeking unity. Throughout I Corinthians we are reminded that in a context of disagreement we will learn much about who we are. I Corinthians may not be against the world, but it is against bringing the ways of the world into the church. I Corinthians wants us to know the church is a different way to live. Why would the world be interested in what we say or do in our disagreements if we disagree the same way as everyone else?

Even our disagreements should insist on unity. The way we disagree matters much to not only our unity, but also our public witness.

Read Full Post »

The Beatles are in the news today as satellite radio launches a new station all about the Fab Four. I am certain there will be mention of the music invasion that came along with them. I hope to hear them sing “You say you want a revolution… We all want to change the world…”

Recently, another ambassador from across the pond has brought up the idea again. N. T. Wright has caused the word revolution to be used more frequently in church vocabulary. At least he has caused it to be used more by me. I have always been pulled in by the idea of revolution, but my new fondness has me using the word even more. Revolution is not only a great word but a necessary action. Certainly we are beginning to discover that to have faith in government to guide us in a healthy direction is a bit naïve.

It is time for a revolution. N. T. Wright would have us believe it began one Friday afternoon in first century Jerusalem. If we agree with that on any level, why do we remain so interested in solutions proposed by the rest of the world? And why do we often talk as if Washington, D. C. should do something about it?

It is time to shed the artificial labels we are wearing and to begin acting like people who belong to a revolution. If we truly believe that there is a story, one story, that can actually make a difference, why are we hanging onto small time peripheral loyalties?

Our literature tells us about early successes in the revolution. We were intentional about entering space with the peace and love of Jesus. We can find faithful moments of loving neighbor and enemy. We can read accounts about differents becoming one, of enemies becoming friends, of sins being forgiven.

The place this revolution begins is not the capital. The revolution begins in the local church. All other loyalties are too small for the kingdom of God. The kingdom of earth as it is in heaven. We do not have time to be duped into other loyalties. If we truly believe a story exists that can make a difference, it is time to embody that story and stop dabbling in convenient mainstream stories that actually run counter to our story. May we be a people who show the revolutionary love that was demonstrated by our king. “You say you want a revolution…”

Read Full Post »

I recently picked up N.T. Wright’s The Day the Revolution Began. Admittedly, I loved it as soon as I read the title. I loved it even more after being pulled into the biblical storyline and enjoying Wright’s ability to pull me into the narrative. Here is an excerpt from the first page; “Another young leader had been brutally liquidated. This was the sort of thing that Rome did best. Caesar was on his throne. Death, as usual, had the last word. Except that in this case it didn’t…” He goes on “Something had happened that afternoon that had changed the world. That by six o’clock on that dark Friday evening the world was a different place.”

Crucifixion was intended to demonstrate who holds the power. And that the powerful were willing to use extreme pain, brutality and shame to make that message clear. Crucifixion was designed to stop a revolution in its tracks. Wright tells us that when Jesus told followers to carry their cross, they would not have heard this as a metaphor. In opposition to the worlds displays of power, the shame and horror became part of the meaning. The biblical storyline became clearer for the followers of Jesus.

The biblical storyline is not the only thing that helped shape the meaning of the crucifixion. There were already existing meanings of the cross as a death instrument that were influential. Wright gives three meanings for crucifixion in the first century. 1) The cross carries social meaning. Simply, we are superior and you are inferior. 2) The cross had political meaning. We are in charge here and you are not. 3) The cross had theological meaning. The gods of Rome and Caesar (son of a god) are more powerful than your gods. As Jesus hung on the cross, these meanings were heard loud and clear and appeared to be true.

Wright spends significant time talking about the themes and narratives that early Christians would have already had in their heads that allowed them to make sense of the crucifixion the way they did. We might ask, alongside Wright, “Why did they not see this as an end of a potential Jesus based revolution?” Instead they saw crucifixion as the beginning. The New Testament insists that when Jesus of Nazareth died, something happened that changed the world.

Early Christians started talking as if this shocking, scandalous execution launched a revolution.  They began to see this as the pivotal event in the story of God. In fact, this was the vital moment in all of human history. God had put his plan in operation – his plan to rescue the world. They saw the crucifixion as the inauguration of God’s plan. The early Christians insisted that followers of King Jesus became part of the difference. The New Testament, with the cross at its center, is about God’s kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven. According to Wright, the first sign the revolution was underway was the resurrection.

Wright wants us to recognize the cross as more than allowing for personal salvation, more than a ticket to heaven. He does not deny personal meaning for individuals, but wants to be clear that the cross carries significant meaning for the wider world. Wright wants us to know that Jesus died so that we could become part of God’s plan to put the world right. Welcome to the revolution.

Read Full Post »